Imus has been fired. The world is a better place. There should be little debate when rascals, gossips, and foul-mouthed troublemakers come tumbling down.

And yet there always is debate.

At one level, the debate centers around the theory of some high profile bigots that certain people are allowed to be foul and racially derogatory, while others are not. This notion — all too popular in rap music circles — is nonsense. Those who ridicule and mock others on the basis of their skin color are a plague to civil, Christian discourse — and it does not matter whether such individuals are white, black, green, or polka dot.

At another level, the debate rages over the issue of free speech in the public square. The question: Shouldn’t journalists and shock jocks have the right to speak their mind? How about bloggers, authors, reporters, or even the “tattlers” and “busybody” women of 1 Timothy 5?

It never fails to amaze me how successful the ACLU has been in its efforts; not only has it done its best to convince the Supreme Court of a view of the First Amendment which would have been utterly foreign to the Founders, but it has trained scoundrels, rogues, and criminals of all stripes to invoke the First Amendment in defense of their bad behavior.

Once upon a time, I was a constitutional law student sitting under my professor, Judge Robert Bork. When we studied the free speech clause, Judge Bork would remind us that the constitutional issue is rather simple. The only type of speech protected under the First Amendment is political speech. That is it. Neither libel, nor profanity, nor obscenity, nor vulgarity are protected under the First Amendment.

This applies to radio, to television, to blogs, to newspapers, and even to conversations. It is not unconstitutional to make rules or pass laws which limit non-political speech. This does not mean that such rules or laws are always wise or advisable, but unless they are examples of the federal government restricting political speech, they are not unconstitutional.

But the fact remains — people may not say, write, or communicate to others whatever is on their mind. They may not shout fire in a crowded theater and then claim a First Amendment Free Speech right. Of course, the American law (both common law and statutory) has always recognized this principle. (Note that until well into the 20th century, certain jurisdictions actually made it unlawful to curse or swear in front of women and children.) The narrow focus of the First Amendment is such that some types of speech are not only tortious (thus civilly actionable) but specifically criminal in nature, and thus prosecutable under federal and state law.

The point is this: The American War of Independence was not fought to give people legal sanction to lie, harass, profane, blaspheme, or slander. Nor was it fought to give unscrupulous men the right to be crude on the public airwaves. It was fought to give people the right to hold their government accountable, and to use speech as one means to accomplish this end.

In my view there is a fair amount of hypocrisy surrounding the firing of Imus. People will let shock jocks like Imus rant and rave in the most indelicate, foul, and offensive manner, but if these radio commentators touch on a politically sensitive subject — they are out. My view is this — don’t wait for the politically insensitive subject — kick ‘em out if they are crass, crude, and foul. Period. By this standard Imus should have gotten the boot a long time ago.